 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | OS and Routers Interestingly enough, my Trendnet TEW-633GR supported IPv6 out of the box. I was surprised when it started giving out IPv6 addresses on my network. What I was not surprised about however, is there is no way to turn it off. Guess that's what I get for buying Trendnet. |
|
| Well, thank you for saying that, basically, one shouldn't buy Trendnet. Many systems still in place now don't support IPv6, and most power-users de-activate it because 1- it causes significant overhead 2- isn't widely supported.
In a local network with a consumer-level router, having IPv6 is likely to slow down the whole network, since IPv6 needs to be transleted back to standard, IPv4 networks, since the vast majority of ISPs still don't support it. |
|
1 edit | reply to Matt
Dude are you sure.....I do ALOT of device testing for work and played with that router a month ago. I did not see it did that, considering the management address out the box is 192.168.0.1. By doing that I mean handing out IP6 addresses by default. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Iceman4u2:Dude are you sure.....I do ALOT of device testing for work and played with that router a month ago. I did not see it did that, considering the management address out the box is 192.168.0.1. By doing that I mean handing out IP6 addresses by default. The Mgmt Address out of the box is 10.1, not 0.1.
And yes, I'm pretty sure. Vista popped up a notification saying "New IPv6 device detected" when I replaced my old Buffalo with this one.
(For further confirmation: »www.xbitlabs.com/articles/networ···r_4.html)
The TEW-633GR employs a VSC7385 Gigabit Ethernet switch made by VITESSE. This SparX series chip is recommended for use in high-performance SOHO solutions. The chip offers 5 ports, has a 112KB frame buffer, supports IPv4 and IPv6 networks (with Jumbo Frames and features integrated tools for QoS and other services.) |
|
2 edits | That is your basis cause Vista said so????? It supports IP6, but it does not hand out IP6 address by default, as you stated. Yes you are right about the management address I did forget the 1 in front of the 0. Vista did that when I added my content media server to my home network as well, but it just means a IP6 capable device. |
|
Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to Matt
And your desire to "turn it off" is indicative of the overall problem - people see IPV6 as something they don't want, god knows why. My router supports it, unfortunately my cablemodem does not.
You'd think the RIAA and MPAA would be paying off ISP's to push IPV6, as it would make linking user & machine a bit easier.
--
If it ain't broke..... You didn't overclock it enough. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by aelfwyne:And your desire to "turn it off" is indicative of the overall problem - people see IPV6 as something they don't want, god knows why. My router supports it, unfortunately my cablemodem does not. I don't need it on my home network. Once my provider supports it I'll happily turn it on and run it. Right now it's unnecessary overhead. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Iceman4u2
said by Iceman4u2: That is your basis cause Vista said so????? It supports IP6, but it does not hand out IP6 address by default, as you stated. Yes you are right about the management address I did forget the 1 in front of the 0. Vista did that when I added my content media server to my home network as well, but it just means a IP6 capable device. I apologize for my poor choice of words. It's sending out IPv6 routing advertisements, but it does not have a built-in DHCPv6 server. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| reply to Matt
said by Matt: I don't need it on my home network. Once my provider supports it I'll happily turn it on and run it. Right now it's unnecessary overhead. Actually nobody needs it on their home network behind a NAT box, the problem is internet and ISP adoption, that's where the address shortages will be. |
|
| reply to Matt
Shortage could be put a bit further in the future is big organizations admit they have reserved way too large IP ranges instead of using NAT more intensively. Multiply
Of course it won't solve the shortage for the next 15 years, but 5 years more with IPv4 would be realistic. |
|
